Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.
Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).
The Australian government has announced a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' to be introduced by the middle of 2017, which includes providing a defence to protect directors from liability for insolvent trading where restructuring advice is obtained in an attempt to turn around a company's financial position. The government has also released the Productivity Commission Report on 'Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure' which contains recommendations on how the defence will operate.
This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
Pre-Packs
The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.
Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.
Background
Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html
The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.
This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.
An order recognising South Korean insolvency proceedings involving a shipping company, which had the effect of staying the commencement of actions against the company, was varied so that parties who had contracted with a Korean ship operator could pursue claims against it in London arbitration1.
Background
Here the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which restrained a building contractor (Harbour View) from presenting a winding-up petition, overturning the high court's decision at first instance. Harbour View had been engaged under two separate contracts based on a JCT Intermediate WCD (2011) to carry out works at two separate sites. The employer (Wilson) failed to pay against two interim certificates (August 2013 and September 2013), leaving a sum of over GBP 1.6 million owing.